state-of-mayflower-v-supruuh

Mayflower District Court

#state-of-mayflower-v-supruuh

This is the start of #state-of-mayflower-v-supruuh channel.

krabzatonin ᴏᴍ 2024-12-30 11:17 p.m.

# CR-0052-24 [State of Mayflower v. supruuh](https://trello.com/c/vCoy2qJk/405-state-of-mayflower-v-supruuh)

CASE INFORMATION**

IN THE MAYFLOWER DISTRICT COURT FOR CLARK COUNTY

---

CR-0052-24 State of Mayflower v. supruuh

Trial Type: Criminal - Felony

Judge Assigned:

Complaint Attached: Yes

---

UPCOMING COURT DATES

‌

PAST COURT EVENTS

‌

PARTIES**

```
State Prosecutor -- DeverusLazvari
Defen...

Labels

Criminal, Felony

krabz pinned a message to this channel.2025-06-21 08:41 p.m.

krabzatonin ᴏᴍ 2024-12-30 11:17 p.m.

@Deverus

has been added

krabzatonin ᴏᴍ 2024-12-30 11:17 p.m.

krabzatonin ᴏᴍ 2024-12-30 11:18 p.m.

@vinc

Deverus 2024-12-30 11:18 p.m.

quicker than im used to.

vinc 2024-12-31 06:23 a.m.

hello, can you draft summons @Deverus
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gYUAEMuDavfQTpx9bhIcD3stiZUNDdSr0gN6tz3Udng/edit(edited)

Judicial Order - Form 001CR – Summons (Criminal)

MAYFLOWER DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT FOR CLARK COUNTY State of Mayflower Prosecutor, -against- Template Defendant. Case No. CR-00XX-24 Summons Presiding Judge: Hon. Name Summons directed to: YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to appear before the District Court of Clark County to answer fo...

vinc 2024-12-31 06:32 a.m.

PC has been found Count 1 - 1 M.S.C. § 2102 Second-degree Murder

Deverus 2024-12-31 03:24 p.m.

will draft summons later this evening

Deverus 2024-12-31 07:55 p.m.

@vinc

vinc 2025-01-01 07:27 a.m.

date typo on the second page but

vinc 2025-01-01 07:27 a.m.

not really that important

vinc 2025-01-01 07:27 a.m.

summons has been delivered

vinc 2025-01-01 07:28 a.m.

vinc 2025-01-02 12:09 p.m.

@daniel

vinc 2025-01-02 12:09 p.m.

with @vloqsouls NOA filed (pending clerk addition to trello)

vinc 2025-01-02 12:10 p.m.

should be added now, confirm that you can speak here

vloqsouls 2025-01-02 12:10 p.m.

Yo yo yo

vloqsouls 2025-01-02 12:10 p.m.

Is the defendant added to the channel or no

vloqsouls 2025-01-02 12:10 p.m.

cuz we'd like to waive summons

daniel 2025-01-02 12:12 p.m.

oh yea im here now

daniel 2025-01-02 12:13 p.m.

yeah i wave my summons and i have @vloqsouls as my attorney

vloqsouls 2025-01-02 12:16 p.m.

we'd also like to schedule a probable cause hearing for this case as well @vinc

vloqsouls 2025-01-02 01:41 p.m.

cc: @vinc

@krabz

Deverus 2025-01-02 01:47 p.m.

thanks for the cc to opposing counsel btw

Deverus 2025-01-02 01:47 p.m.

nevertheless that’s a pre-trial motion

Deverus 2025-01-02 01:47 p.m.

we’re not in pre trial lol

vinc 2025-01-02 01:48 p.m.

yea we haven't begun pre-trial

User

Message could not be loaded.

Deverus 2025-01-02 01:51 p.m.

vinc

yea we haven't begun pre-trial

vloqsouls 2025-01-02 01:51 p.m.

incorrect

Deverus 2025-01-02 01:52 p.m.

would you please add my solicitor Mr.judge @vinc

vloqsouls 2025-01-02 01:52 p.m.

Mayfl. D. Ct. 3(2)

vloqsouls 2025-01-02 01:52 p.m.

"A pretrial period in all criminal matters shall commence upon the arrival of the Defendant’s counsel, whether they proceed pro se, attain private counsel or if the trial proceeds in absentia, the pretrial period should start upon the arrival of the Defendant’s Public Defender."

vinc 2025-01-02 01:52 p.m.

yeah

vinc 2025-01-02 01:52 p.m.

vinc 2025-01-02 01:53 p.m.

@walter!

walter! 2025-01-02 01:53 p.m.

deputy solicitor general notsfeelings for the state your honor

walter! 2025-01-02 01:53 p.m.

thank you

walter! 2025-01-02 01:53 p.m.

the filing of the motion is untimely when the defendant has not yet been arraigned

walter! 2025-01-02 01:54 p.m.

ought to be rejected, or tolled, until such time as the procedural hurdles have been cleared

vloqsouls

"A pretrial period in all criminal matters shall commence upon the arrival of the Defendant’s counsel, whether they proceed pro se, attain private counsel or if the trial proceeds ...

vloqsouls 2025-01-02 01:54 p.m.

Deverus 2025-01-02 01:55 p.m.

in any case, i need to get back to work. I shall be unavailable until 9pm eastern. thank you gentlemen.

walter! 2025-01-02 01:55 p.m.

our argument has nothing to do with the rules

walter! 2025-01-02 01:55 p.m.

and everything to do with the common law surrounding the matter

vloqsouls 2025-01-02 01:55 p.m.

you're arguing a procedural defficiency

vloqsouls 2025-01-02 01:55 p.m.

that in fact does have something to do with the rules

walter! 2025-01-02 01:55 p.m.

the first appearance of the defendant has traditionally been, in every state and common law jurisdiction, to arraign them

walter! 2025-01-02 01:56 p.m.

i am not interested in brawling with opposing counsel over well-settled matters of common law

vloqsouls 2025-01-02 01:56 p.m.

then lets get to arraigning

walter! 2025-01-02 01:56 p.m.

will the court proceed to arraignment and then we can get to the matter of the motions the defense wishes to submit? @vinc

vloqsouls 2025-01-02 01:57 p.m.

(it's already submitted pursuant to Mayfl. D. Ct. 3(2) but alr)

vloqsouls 2025-01-02 01:57 p.m.

the defence does not object to arraignment however

vinc 2025-01-02 01:57 p.m.

let's begin arraignment then

vloqsouls 2025-01-02 01:58 p.m.

let me make sure the defendant is awake via my banana phone

vloqsouls 2025-01-02 01:58 p.m.

walter! 2025-01-02 01:58 p.m.

deverus will be handling the arraignment matters

vloqsouls 2025-01-02 01:59 p.m.

oh well deverus is gone until 9pm est

vloqsouls 2025-01-02 01:59 p.m.

@vinc

in that case we'd like to postpone until he returns from the grueling 9-5 capitalist job

vinc 2025-01-02 01:59 p.m.

god bless our working class

vinc 2025-01-02 02:00 p.m.

we can postpone, that's fine

daniel 2025-01-02 02:03 p.m.

chat the defendant is not staying awake until 6am

vloqsouls 2025-01-02 02:03 p.m.

bruh

vinc 2025-01-02 02:11 p.m.

what is this man's timezone

vinc

what is this man's timezone

vloqsouls 2025-01-02 02:13 p.m.

@daniel

vloqsouls 2025-01-02 02:14 p.m.

we all have the same question

walter! 2025-01-02 02:14 p.m.

the middle east bro

daniel 2025-01-02 02:17 p.m.

i am in dubai

daniel 2025-01-02 02:17 p.m.

gulf standard time(edited)

vloqsouls 2025-01-02 02:21 p.m.

can we do it asynchronous then

vloqsouls 2025-01-02 03:06 p.m.

for tha record the MTD is now amended

vloqsouls 2025-01-02 03:07 p.m.

cc: my kingz @vinc

@krabz

and my non kingz @walter!

@Deverus

(edited)

vloqsouls 2025-01-02 03:07 p.m.

https://tenor.com/view/fuck-the-police-nwa-ice-cube-eazye-gif-14223343

vinc 2025-01-02 03:07 p.m.

yea we can do async

vinc 2025-01-02 03:07 p.m.

@walter!

@Deverus

(tagging for above since edited messages doesnt update pings)

vinc 2025-01-02 03:08 p.m.

-taps sign-

vinc 2025-01-02 03:08 p.m.

vloqsouls 2025-01-02 03:35 p.m.

@vinc

actually we'd like for a probable cause hearing to be staged because we have an amazing AOPC

vloqsouls 2025-01-02 03:35 p.m.

(sarcasm)

vloqsouls 2025-01-02 03:36 p.m.

the defense has some issues after playing where's waldo

vloqsouls 2025-01-02 03:43 p.m.

with the facts*

vloqsouls

@vinc actually we'd like for a probable cause hearing to be staged because we have an amazing AOPC

vloqsouls 2025-01-02 03:46 p.m.

preferrably over discord cuz of timezone diffs

vloqsouls 2025-01-02 03:57 p.m.

and considering the fact that we are procedurally in pre trial we'd like the motion to be heard

vinc 2025-01-03 03:20 p.m.

sure

vinc 2025-01-03 03:20 p.m.

make your case

vloqsouls 2025-01-03 03:46 p.m.

I'll deliver a statement in a bit I'm currently taking a fat dump

vloqsouls 2025-01-03 03:56 p.m.

Thanks your highness, and may it please the court.

The AOPC submitted by the state contains unnecessary speculations and conclusory language that do not form a substantial basis for the factual allegations listed within the CI. Before we deconstruct the AOPC submitted by the state, we must establish a legal basis for our analysis. Thankfully, we can turn to Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) for our answer (holding an affidavit "must provide the magistrate with a substantial basis for determining the existence of probable cause" and that "wholly conclusory" statements about the officer's beliefs are insufficient). Plain and simple, probable cause determinations must be based on a substantial factual basis rather than mere conjecture or speculation.

Now that we have established our legal basis, we can now turn to the contents of the AOPC. The AOPC contains many "assumptions," as stated by the investigator. For example, it states ad verbatim "we can also assume that the defendant had little judgment in carrying out the shooting and failed to properly exercise the Castle Act's right to use deadly force." Id. at ¶4c (emphasis added). In addition, it also states "The defendant, with the reasonable assumption that he had a correct judgment to determine whether lethal force could be deployed in the current situation." Id. at ¶5c (emphasis added).

We continue with speculations and legal conclusions; "[T]he defendant can be seen brandishing his firearm and discharging his weapon until the victim is rag-dolled and assumed dead within the Lander City limit." Id. at ¶5a (emphasis added); "It can be confirmed, without a reasonable doubt that it is in fact the defendant who brandishes his firearm." Id. at ¶6c; "[I]t can be confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had no justifiable reason to discharge his firearm within the municipality of Lander." Id. at ¶6d.

vloqsouls 2025-01-03 03:57 p.m.

I can go on and on your highness, but I believe that the point has been made clear. Speculations and conclusory statements are obviously not sufficient factual material, and are extremely prejudicial to the defendant. The AOPC in its current form relies on conclusions and speculations that are not grounded in fact, which is highly dangerous to the judicial integrity of our state and this case.

We humbly request that we proceed further with a probable cause hearing to determine the objective facts of this matter, not opinions and legal conclusions.

vloqsouls 2025-01-03 03:57 p.m.

cc: @vinc

@Deverus

@walter!

vloqsouls 2025-01-03 04:06 p.m.

With that we also retract the MTD because I was being retarded and just yapping.

vloqsouls

With that we also retract the MTD because I was being retarded and just yapping.

vloqsouls 2025-01-03 04:10 p.m.

Excuse me not retarded, mentally slow. Gotta watch my potty mouth..

vinc 2025-01-03 04:14 p.m.

Thank you for the correction please avoid using derogatory terms in the future

vinc 2025-01-03 04:14 p.m.

at least in this chamber

Deverus 2025-01-03 06:08 p.m.

good morning

vloqsouls

@vinc in that case we'd like to postpone until he returns from the grueling 9-5 capitalist job

Deverus 2025-01-03 06:08 p.m.

let the record show that my job is, in fact, not a 9-5 capitalist job

Deverus 2025-01-03 06:08 p.m.

i am, in fact, a drug dealer.

Deverus 2025-01-03 06:08 p.m.

albeit licensed by the state of texas

User

Message could not be loaded.

vloqsouls 2025-01-04 11:16 p.m.

bleh

Deverus 2025-01-06 11:39 a.m.

your honor, when can we get the lad’s probable cause hearing and arraignment done so we can clear the procedural hurdles to hear this motion to dismiss and i can be bothered to write a response to it @vinc

vinc 2025-01-06 11:48 a.m.

i was out yesterday (american football sunday)

i will get back later today, i'm snowed in.

vinc 2025-01-06 11:49 a.m.

we can do this async

vinc 2025-01-06 11:49 a.m.

winter storm has hit the mid atlantic so i am basically stuck inside for a minute

vinc 2025-01-06 05:45 p.m.

never mind guys i am home

vinc

we can do this async

vinc 2025-01-07 07:53 a.m.

I'm going to do it on Discord, probable cause hearing begins as of January 7, 2025 at 7:52 a.m.

Please make your statements @vloqsouls

@Deverus

so we can get this over with

vloqsouls

Thanks your highness, and may it please the court. The AOPC submitted by the state contains unnecessary speculations and conclusory language that do not form a substantial basis f...

vloqsouls 2025-01-07 07:58 a.m.

Tbh I kinda yapped up a storm here

vloqsouls 2025-01-07 07:58 a.m.

But it's 8am rn so I'm probably gonna change my mind

vloqsouls 2025-01-07 07:58 a.m.

If the state wants to make a statement they can tho

vinc 2025-01-07 04:35 p.m.

ideally i'd like to get this done by the 12th (end of the 10-day pre-trial period)

vinc 2025-01-07 04:35 p.m.

there is no reason why this hearing should take longer than 2 days (unless my irl schedule conflicts / requires attention)(edited)

vinc

I'm going to do it on Discord, probable cause hearing begins as of January 7, 2025 at 7:52 a.m. Please make your statements @vloqsouls @Deverus so we can get this ove...

Deverus 2025-01-07 09:16 p.m.

your honour.

i'd first like to address the issues presented by the defense counsel.

the flaws in the affidavit, while few, have been recognized. as of this time, i have directed a supervisory investigator to develop a superseding affidavit, which will be accompanied by a superseding indictment. at that time we will motion for the extension of the pre-trial period by 10 days to prevent prejudice to the defendant and allow for the defense counsel to review the superseding affidavit and indictment and prepare their defense.

nevertheless;

the present indictment charges the defendant with one count; second-degree murder, the statute of which requires any individual being convicted of this crime being proven to, beyond a reasonable doubt, having (a) killed someone intentionally, and (b) having done so with the intent to kill or commit great bodily harm.

in examining whether probable cause exists in this case, we turn to the affidavit of probable cause, namely, exhibit a contained therein. in exhibit a, which is video evidence taken by the victim, just_dapper, we can identify that the defendant, identified by his username at 00:17, is holding a sign reading "TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT, SURVIVORS WILL BE SHOT AGAIN AND KILLED."

the defendant, when the victim jumped across a small fence into the parking lot of clark county regional hospital, brandished a handgun and discharged it multiple times in the direction of the victim, striking him multiple times and killing him. even after the victim had been killed, defendant continued to discharge his handgun until the victim's lifeless corpse had fallen onto the ground.

addressing the elements of proof as required in second-degree murder, we turn first to the matter of whether or not the defendant intentionally killed the victim. as we can observe in exhibit a, the defendant brandished his firearm in a deliberate fashion and discharged it directly at the victim, not accidentally striking any of the other potential bystanders he very well could have. while showcasing the defendant's competent aim, it also showcases that he had one apparent target: the victim. this is only further substantiated when the defendant holstered his firearm after the victim's dead body fell to the ground.

now we turn to the second element: whether or not the defendant had the intent to kill or commit great bodily injury when he discharged his firearm at the victim. in this regard, we turn to the sign the defendant was holding, which clearly stated that anyone which the defendant determined to be a trespasser would be shot, and those who survived the defendant's first salvo would be shot again and surely killed. needless to say, it is clear that the defendant, even before the actions which took place, demonstrated a clear intent to kill or cause bodily injury to anyone who he deemed a trespasser, and in this case, that supposed trespasser is the victim, just_dapper.

probable cause is no new topic, and “[exists] where the facts and circumstances...are sufficient in themselves to warrant a belief by a man of reasonable caution that a crime is being committed.” Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 161 (1949)

the state strongly asserts that the facts, as laid out above, would warrant any man of reasonable caution to believe that the defendant killed the victim both intentionally, and with the intent to kill or cause great bodily injury.

thank you.

cc: @vinc

@vloqsouls

vinc 2025-01-07 10:35 p.m.

ok @vloqsouls your turn

vinc 2025-01-07 10:35 p.m.

if you have anything else

vloqsouls 2025-01-09 10:01 a.m.

Hi I'll make a response sooner or later

vloqsouls 2025-01-09 10:01 a.m.

Just busy with school work

vloqsouls 2025-01-11 09:30 a.m.

Thanks Judge, and may it please the court.

An affidavit of probable cause is meant to serve as the factual basis to the alleged offence listed within the CI. The flaws within the affidavit as outlined by the defense are significant enough to detract from the probative value of the factual account of the officer and by extension their determination of probable cause. It is clear that the affidavit is highly conclusory, speculative and prejudicial, and therefore must be struck as evidence.

The defense strongly opposes the states request to extend the pretrial period for another TEN DAYS to fix factual deficiencies in their AOPC. The state should have considered the factual errors in the investigators sworn testimony prior to filing charges against the defendant—even still, the superseding indictment and affidavit wouldn't clarify the glaring errors presented by the defense. The defense fears that granting a superseding affidavit and information would violate the defendants Sixth Amendment right to know the charges being brought forth against him, only serving to muddying the waters. The state should have spotted these errors in advance, not in the middle of pretrial proceedings.

vloqsouls 2025-01-11 09:30 a.m.

We now turn to the legal arguments. The state alleges that securing a conviction merely requires "intent to kill" as per 1 M.S.C. § 2102. This is simply not true. This court has considered on prior occassions the inherent presence of malice aforethought in second degree murder. See State of Mayflower v. ISpilledMyTacos, 1 Mf. ___ (2024) (holding malice aforethought to be "necessary mens rea" for second degree murder in accordance with 1 M.S.C. § 2102). The affidavit concedes that the defendant acted without malice, stating that he acted under the belief that he was exercising lethal force lawfully within the confines of the Castle Doctrine Act. Malice is not inherently satisfied by having an intent to kill or cause great bodily harm alone. See United States v. Serawop, 410 F.3d 656, 664 (10th Cir. 2005) (“Malice is not satisfied simply by killing with an intentional or reckless mental state; instead, malice specifically requires committing the wrongful act without justification, excuse, or mitigation”).

vloqsouls 2025-01-11 09:30 a.m.

Furthermore, the states argument runs contrary to the principle of Hume's Law—that the creation of a normative purely from a positive is logically improbable by asserting a claim based solely on a fact.

The mere fact that the defendant killed Just_Dapper does not satisfy the requisite of malice aforethought—the affidavit concedes this premise by admitting he acted under a reasonable belief he was acting with justification in accordance with section e of the Castle Doctrine Act. Thus, the defendant, by being admonished of all allegations regarding malice, cannot reasonably be convicted of Second Degree Murder, therefore probable cause cannot be sufficiently established.

We ask the court to dismiss this case.

vloqsouls 2025-01-11 09:31 a.m.

cc: @Deverus

@vinc

vloqsouls 2025-01-11 09:35 a.m.

tldr you can't establish probable cause for SDM without alleging that malice was present because SDM has an inherent malice aforethought requirement blah blah blah

vloqsouls 2025-01-11 09:45 a.m.

also food for thought if the states principle of requiring only an intent to kill to prove SDM w/o malicious aforethought were applied then that would implicate anyone shooting burglars in their homes in self defense running directly contrary to the principles of common law Castle Doctrine and our Castle Doctrine Act(edited)

vloqsouls 2025-01-11 09:45 a.m.

and also render the separate charge of voluntary manslaughter absolutely useless

vloqsouls 2025-01-12 07:38 p.m.

erm your honour just to let you know pretrial is officially over so we'd prefer to have a decision on both the PC hearing and MTD @vinc

vloqsouls 2025-01-12 07:38 p.m.

preferably ASAP but it's exams so idrc

vinc 2025-01-12 07:38 p.m.

ah NUTS!!!!!

vinc 2025-01-12 07:38 p.m.

ok i will do it soon

Deverus 2025-01-12 08:11 p.m.

for the record, your honour, i'm not quite sure how the defense counsel expects to end pre-trial when probable cause still has not been determined, and his client has neither appeared nor been arraigned- and they have not waived such. @vinc

Deverus 2025-01-12 08:11 p.m.

these are the exact procedural steps the state has asked the court to be followed a multitude of times when this case was getting started.

Deverus 2025-01-12 08:14 p.m.

it has been the common procedure of this court to not begin pre-trial before the defendant has been properly arraigned, as to avoid instances such as this, where the defense counsel has caused such chaos and confusion in the court as to allow for the pre-trial period to conclude without the defendant so much as having appeared- or having been arraigned.

Deverus 2025-01-12 08:18 p.m.

the state thereby petitions for the court to, as is proper and common-sense procedure, to make a determination on probable cause, have the defendant appear and arraigned- unless of course the defense waives that, and then move forward with pre-trial and hearing the defense counsel's motion to dismiss, providing the state with the procedural 48 hour timeline to respond.

Deverus

for the record, your honour, i'm not quite sure how the defense counsel expects to end pre-trial when probable cause still has not been determined, and his client has neither appea...

vloqsouls 2025-01-12 08:18 p.m.

pretrial begins following the appointment of defense counsel and lasts for 10 days

vloqsouls 2025-01-12 08:18 p.m.

we have reached the 10 day limit

vloqsouls

pretrial begins following the appointment of defense counsel and lasts for 10 days

Deverus 2025-01-12 08:19 p.m.

indeed so, yet the court, and you, have ignored quite frankly the first step in any criminal proceeding- the arraignment.

Deverus 2025-01-12 08:19 p.m.

your client has not so much as appeared.

vloqsouls 2025-01-12 08:19 p.m.

he has

vloqsouls 2025-01-12 08:19 p.m.

but he's in gulf standard time

vloqsouls 2025-01-12 08:19 p.m.

so obviously we cannot do arraignment synchronously

vloqsouls 2025-01-12 08:20 p.m.

he's not going to be staying up until 6am

Deverus 2025-01-12 08:20 p.m.

then by all means, waive arraignment and enter a plea of not-guilty, that is well within your ability, but the fact stands that arraignment is the first and foundational step in any criminal trial.

Deverus 2025-01-12 08:20 p.m.

and has, in all other cases, been the pre-requisite to pre-trial.

vloqsouls 2025-01-12 08:21 p.m.

but you are insistent on arraignment though and want it done

vloqsouls 2025-01-12 08:21 p.m.

so we've been simply waiting for the judge and you to begin reading the charges

vloqsouls 2025-01-12 08:21 p.m.

which unfortunately you haven't throughout the entire 10 days

Deverus 2025-01-12 08:22 p.m.

we have never been insistent on a synchronous, or asynchronous, arraignment. we have been insistent that the court follow common procedure as to not allow for such confusion as this to occur.

if you waived arraignment and entered an automatic plea of not-guilty, as is your right, then we would have no issue.

Deverus 2025-01-12 08:22 p.m.

but you did not, pointed to the sign that pre-trial starts at appearance, and insisted that the court hear your motion.

Deverus

your honor, when can we get the lad’s probable cause hearing and arraignment done so we can clear the procedural hurdles to hear this motion to dismiss and i can be bothered to wri...

vloqsouls 2025-01-12 08:22 p.m.

so we are lying on the court record

Deverus 2025-01-12 08:23 p.m.

so then, one instance of me asking for your client to be arraigned is me being insistent?

Deverus 2025-01-12 08:23 p.m.

as i just said, we have been insistent only on the matter that the court need to follow the common delineated procedure.

Deverus 2025-01-12 08:23 p.m.

otherwise, this happens.

Deverus 2025-01-12 08:23 p.m.

i would have had zero issue if the arraignment was waived and a not-guilty plea was entered automatically;

vinc

we can do this async

vloqsouls 2025-01-12 08:23 p.m.

well its been made clear that we can do both the pc hearing and arraignmetn async

Deverus 2025-01-12 08:24 p.m.

that would, after all, clear the procedural requirement.

vloqsouls 2025-01-12 08:24 p.m.

arraignment*

vloqsouls 2025-01-12 08:24 p.m.

its on the court to read the charges

Deverus 2025-01-12 08:26 p.m.

then that would be the defect of the court for not adhering to that. nevertheless, the state insists that the fundamental procedural requirements to move this case forward have, from the get-go, not been followed.

Deverus

then that would be the defect of the court for not adhering to that. nevertheless, the state insists that the fundamental procedural requirements to move this case forward have, fr...

vloqsouls 2025-01-12 08:28 p.m.

fundamental procedural requirements such as what

vloqsouls 2025-01-12 08:28 p.m.

no decision has been made on PC hearing or the MTD or anything for that matter

vloqsouls 2025-01-12 08:29 p.m.

by all means the court still has the ability to read out the charges and arraign the defendant async—at the discretion of the judge

vloqsouls 2025-01-12 08:30 p.m.

either way we object to a 10 day extension of pretrial due to prejudicial concerns

daniel

chat the defendant is not staying awake until 6am

vloqsouls 2025-01-12 08:32 p.m.

for the record the defendant has appeared and clearly stated timezone issues which make it extremely difficult to do arraignment synchronously

Deverus

the state thereby petitions for the court to, as is proper and common-sense procedure, to make a determination on probable cause, have the defendant appear and arraigned- unless of...

vloqsouls 2025-01-12 08:39 p.m.

the defense agrees with all except the last request. this would go contrary to Mayfl. D. Ct. 3(9): "A party may only respond once to a pretrial motion if they wish to respond at all. That response must be filed within forty-eight (48) hours of the motion being made."

considering that pretrial started on the 2nd with the MTD being filed the same day and it is now the 12th—the defense does not need to further elaborate because that forty eight hour period to respond to the MTD has passed a while ago.

vloqsouls 2025-01-12 08:40 p.m.

@vinc

TLDR just speedrun arraignment and we can get stuff done since the state is malding; i can wake up the defendant to submit his plea whenever

vinc 2025-01-13 07:52 p.m.

Ok. Arraignment will begin asynchronously due to the difference in timezones.

vloqsouls 2025-01-14 12:36 p.m.

Who's reading charges??

vinc 2025-01-14 12:43 p.m.

i got it

vloqsouls 2025-01-14 12:53 p.m.

ill let the defendant know to plead once u do

vinc 2025-01-14 12:57 p.m.

## Arraignment

VENUE: state-of-mayflower-v-supruuh
DEADLINE OF DISCUSSION: Thursday, January 16, 2025 at 12:43 p.m.

The Defendant is charged with one count of 1 MSC § 2102 - SECOND DEGREE MURDER, which leads up to a sentence time of up to 35 minutes if convicted.

As a reminder, your constitutional rights are as follows:

1. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say here can and will be used against you.
2. You have the right to be informed of the charges against you, of which was stated above.
3. You have the right to confront and cross-examine any witnesses who testify against you in this case.
4. You have the right to present evidence in your defense and to call witnesses on your behalf.
5. You have the right to not testify in your own case, without such being held or used against you.
6. You have the right to an attorney during proceedings (of which you already have one obtained.)

With that out of the way, @daniel, please answer the following:

1. Do you understand the constitutional rights listed above?
2. Do you understand the nature of the charge levied against you?
3. Are you aware of the sentence of up to 35 minutes of incarceration if you're convicted?
4. How do you plead to Count One, 1 MSC § 2102 - SECOND DEGREE MURDER?

Please respond in a timely manner. No further matters will be considered at this time.

daniel 2025-01-14 01:19 p.m.

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Not Guilty

vinc 2025-01-14 01:24 p.m.

awesome

vloqsouls 2025-01-14 01:55 p.m.

ok now we can get everything else sorted ig

vloqsouls 2025-01-14 01:56 p.m.

when can we expect a ruling on PC and the MTD

vloqsouls 2025-01-14 02:07 p.m.

cuz pretrial is lowkey over

vinc 2025-01-14 02:23 p.m.

soon

vinc 2025-01-14 02:24 p.m.

I won't be taking 2 months for the ruling I just got a lot of stuff on my plate right now sadly

vloqsouls 2025-01-14 02:25 p.m.

same I'm not in a rush either

vloqsouls 2025-01-14 02:25 p.m.

just don't Arthur_Chen us pls

vinc 2025-01-14 02:26 p.m.

I won't

User

Message could not be loaded.

daniel 2025-01-14 03:25 p.m.

Hey I heard that guy was chill.

vinc 2025-01-14 03:28 p.m.

He's cool man

vloqsouls 2025-01-17 03:34 p.m.

your honor it appears that the counsel on record has uh resigned from the DOJ @vinc

vloqsouls 2025-01-17 03:34 p.m.

as of January 15th

vloqsouls 2025-01-17 03:35 p.m.

im not sure if the DOJ is willing to continue this but ye deverus is gone

vloqsouls 2025-01-17 03:35 p.m.

i only just found out now

vloqsouls Server2025-01-17 03:36 p.m.

vinc 2025-01-17 03:47 p.m.

sadly

vloqsouls 2025-01-17 03:48 p.m.

A moment of silence for yet another DOJ resignation

vloqsouls 2025-01-17 03:49 p.m.

https://youtu.be/McCDWYgVyps?si=5-IHNQbQQO0BNHAS

Royal Australian Air Force

The Last Post

Corporal Matthew Creek of the Royal Military College Band plays The Last Post at the Australian War Memorial, Canberra. The Last Post is one of a number of bugle calls in military tradition that mark the phases of the day. In military tradition, the Last Post is the bugle call that signifies the end of the day's activities. It is also sounded at...

Deverus 2025-01-17 04:08 p.m.

@JaroCycle

krabzatonin ᴏᴍ used

/add

clerkFlow Bot2025-01-20 01:45 a.m.

Case Modified

@krabz

has added @JaroCycle to the case channel.

krabzatonin ᴏᴍ 2025-01-20 01:45 a.m.

@JaroCycle

has filed a NoA and hasbeen added

krabzatonin ᴏᴍ 2025-01-20 01:45 a.m.

i like the signature

krabzatonin ᴏᴍ 2025-01-20 01:45 a.m.

but for your convenience next time you can just do /s/ JaroCycle

JaroCycle 2025-01-20 02:00 a.m.

Alright

krabzatonin ᴏᴍ

i like the signature

JaroCycle 2025-01-20 03:49 a.m.

Mouse signing

JaroCycle 2025-01-20 03:51 a.m.

Since I am here already, @vinc Your Honor when will you rule on the pc?

krabzatonin ᴏᴍ

i like the signature

vloqsouls 2025-01-20 09:16 a.m.

literal hieroglyphs

vloqsouls

literal hieroglyphs

JaroCycle 2025-01-20 09:37 a.m.

you should see any other polish writitng

JaroCycle 2025-01-20 09:37 a.m.

Especially in medicine lol

daniel 2025-01-20 10:21 a.m.

my 1 year old cousin can write better with a mouse

JaroCycle

Especially in medicine lol

vloqsouls 2025-01-20 12:28 p.m.

well at least it doesn't compare to Russian cursive

vloqsouls 2025-01-20 12:29 p.m.

vloqsouls

well at least it doesn't compare to Russian cursive

daniel 2025-01-21 11:45 a.m.

I can actually write in russian cursive and its not usually THAT bad

JaroCycle 2025-01-21 01:33 p.m.

@vinc

Your Honor, respectfully but it's been more than a week,

JaroCycle 2025-01-21 01:33 p.m.

Can we get a rulling on PC

vinc 2025-01-22 02:16 p.m.

I will be leaving the bench

vloqsouls 2025-01-22 02:18 p.m.

bruh

JaroCycle 2025-01-22 02:18 p.m.

That's

JaroCycle 2025-01-22 02:18 p.m.

Sad

vloqsouls 2025-01-22 02:18 p.m.

@krabz

reassign or

vloqsouls 2025-01-22 02:18 p.m.

idk tbh

vloqsouls 2025-01-22 02:18 p.m.

@JaroCycle

dms

JaroCycle 2025-01-22 02:18 p.m.

It's getting

JaroCycle 2025-01-22 02:18 p.m.

reassigned

vinc 2025-01-22 02:19 p.m.

sorry i had like no time to write the ruling

vinc 2025-01-22 02:19 p.m.

classes started last week

JaroCycle 2025-01-22 02:19 p.m.

it's fine,

JaroCycle 2025-01-22 02:19 p.m.

respectfully sourced but like

JaroCycle 2025-01-22 02:19 p.m.

yes

vinc 2025-01-22 02:20 p.m.

Me when I troll

vinc 2025-01-22 02:20 p.m.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1055442977255866418/1289946755781361674/caption-6.gif

vloqsouls 2025-01-22 02:21 p.m.

shah 2025-01-22 02:22 p.m.

Judge @Richo

shah

Judge @Richo

JaroCycle 2025-01-22 02:24 p.m.

he is on LOA

JaroCycle 2025-01-22 02:24 p.m.

like what

shah 2025-01-22 02:24 p.m.

he off

Richo 2025-01-22 02:24 p.m.

am back

Richo 2025-01-22 02:24 p.m.

Richo 2025-01-22 02:25 p.m.

was just for a while

JaroCycle 2025-01-22 02:25 p.m.

great

vloqsouls 2025-01-22 02:32 p.m.

oh my goodness were going to get stalled for 3 weeks

vloqsouls 2025-01-22 02:32 p.m.

hi judge @Richo

shah used

/add

clerkFlow Bot2025-01-22 02:32 p.m.

Case Modified

@shah

has added @Arthur to the case channel.

vloqsouls 2025-01-22 02:33 p.m.

@Arthur

Arthur 2025-01-22 02:34 p.m.

Hello @vloqsouls

Arthur 2025-01-22 02:34 p.m.

Please inform the court what stage we're at.

vloqsouls 2025-01-22 02:35 p.m.

we are awaiting on a ruling for PC and a MTD

vloqsouls 2025-01-22 02:36 p.m.

pretrial ended on the 12th

vloqsouls 2025-01-22 02:36 p.m.

limbo state basically

Arthur

Please inform the court what stage we're at.

Arthur 2025-01-22 02:44 p.m.

Has the state replied to this MTD? @JaroCycle

JaroCycle 2025-01-22 02:46 p.m.

yes, respond is way back

vloqsouls

pretrial ended on the 12th

JaroCycle 2025-01-22 02:47 p.m.

we technically

JaroCycle 2025-01-22 02:47 p.m.

still in pretrial

JaroCycle 2025-01-22 02:47 p.m.

cause of the missing rullings

Richo 2025-01-22 02:49 p.m.

I am extending the pre-trial period to allow for judicial considerations of the pending motions.

JaroCycle

yes, respond is way back

vloqsouls 2025-01-22 02:58 p.m.

no it hasn't wtf

vloqsouls 2025-01-22 02:59 p.m.

the previous prosecutor declined to respond because it was "not worth his time" @Arthur

vloqsouls 2025-01-22 02:59 p.m.

and the 48 hour period provided to respond to MTDs passed over a week ago

vloqsouls 2025-01-22 03:00 p.m.

per Mayfl. D. Ct. 3(9)

Deverus

your honor, when can we get the lad’s probable cause hearing and arraignment done so we can clear the procedural hurdles to hear this motion to dismiss and i can be bothered to wri...

vloqsouls 2025-01-22 03:01 p.m.

correction he wasn't "bothered to write a response to it"

vloqsouls 2025-01-22 03:01 p.m.

(?)